Oh, is this a new topic? Are my thoughts on this unclear? I don't have to respond to every topic on this forum, because there isn't much left for me to say. But the one thing I do do is moderate, which here is a word that means point out flaws. So if you seem to be heavily moderated, reflect inward.
“We are seeing Islamist Muslims who are reading directly from their documents and doing what is prescribed in their documents. It is inarguable,” Nehlen said. “You cannot argue that this religion is being perverted. It is not being perverted. It is being practiced in a fundamental way to spread Shariah around the world.” And he said giving ground at the margins is a surefire way to lose the fight. “There is no reason that a country should give up its culture, its heroes, its holidays, its traditions in order to make way for a new culture, new traditions, new holidays, new heroes,” Nehlen said. “That’s not what a nation-state is all about. I for one will not stand by and watch it happen.” The guy that tried to primary Speaker Ryan "Tucker Carlson said America must be sure not to "become Europe" and blindly embrace multiculturalism. He pointed to BBC reporter Katty Kay who he said was treating terror attacks as "something that happens... like the weather." Carlson said it is important for the U.S. to make sure that each person who immigrates embraces American values. "If you really cared about America, you wouldn't let it become Europe," he said...." Amen to that First we must take the small step of the travel ban and then move forward from there.
"Hashim Abedi, who was born in 1997, was arrested in Tripoli on Wednesday evening by the Libyan counter-terrorism force Rada on suspicion of links to the Islamic State, and was planning a new attack on the Libyan capital, a government spokesman told Reuters on Wednesday. The father of the bomber was arrested in Tripoli on Wednesday, a Libyan security spokesman told The Associated Press. The father, Ramadan Abedi, had said another brother of the bomber, Ismail, was arrested Tuesday. What's more, two U.S. defense officials confirmed to Fox News Salman Abedi spent three weeks in Libya prior to the Manchester bombing, retuning to England just days before the Ariana Grande concert where he launched his attack Monday. " http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...eda-linked-group-ex-libyan-official-says.html Seems this "vetting" works really well after the fact in this case not so much before.
Of course not. Why would that even be an option? We can't boot all Muslims out of the country but we can stop them from coming in. This doesn't solve the problem entirely, obviously. If you're here legally and have no affiliations with radical extremists, by all means, enjoy your freedoms. Doesn't mean we have to keep gambling with our lives by allowing could be terrorists in. It's not the most popular stance but it's probably the safest.
So, you're just ok with doing away with the whole religious freedom part of the Constitution and the laws saying you can't target any singular group based on where they come from nor their religion. Got it.
If we are going to argue semantics and technicalities. I never called his statement a strawman. I simply asked if he was building a strawman. Which it certainly appeared, to me anyway, that was where he was headed. Then I'm told I don't know what a strawman is, then I'm told what a strawman is (which doesn't sound like the definition I posted, at all). Now I'm told I can't read and I'm dumb and I'm a troll with a shtick. All the while, I'm actually trying to converse on the thread topic, while you and the other guy express nary an opinion, you'd rather waste your time insulting me. So, you still here for the co-signing or do you have an opinion about the topic?
I'm for not letting terrorists in to our country. The EU is the canary in the mine. That birdie and coming back folks. I don't want what's happening there to happen here. I'm not a religious person, so what a person believes doesn't matter much to me. Except when that religion is being taking hostage by radical fundamentalists who seek to destroy Western civilization. I take issue with that. And until we can be better at vetting them, they need to stay put.
So, the religion of someone does matter to you, and you support doing away with religious freedom protections in the Constitution as well as the laws preventing targeting people over country of origin and religious beliefs. Got it.
Maybe they got that one kid who hits a crazy growth spurt but doesn't lose his handle running the squad. If they didn't do it, they wish they did, not sure which is worse anymore.
Does our Constitution protect the religious rights of non-citizens? Because that is who we are talking about here.
Immigration laws do. And yes, non-citizens do have some Constitutional protections. http://www.whitlockgray.com/2017/01/30/do-non-citizens-have-rights-under-the-constitution/ Even illegal aliens have Constitutional protections. The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants — whichever label is the flavor of the day — don't have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong — they are really, truly and sincerely wrong. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights Persons, not citizens. Equal prorection under the law.
This is going to blow your mind, are you ready? I like hearing other people's opinions, especially those who typically disagree with me. I like to engage in conversation. I don't know your opinion on the matter, that's why I asked, same for Judgement (very appropriate name by the way). I'd like to hear it, you don't want to partake? Fine. You want to just moderate my flaws? Fine. I'll keep responding to people who actually want to share their thoughts and keep moving.
Messed up the quotes location & I can't edit it. Here's a corrected post: Immigration laws do. And yes, non-citizens do have some Constitutional protections. http://www.whitlockgray.com/2017/01/30/do-non-citizens-have-rights-under-the-constitution/ http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights Persons, not citizens. Equal prorection under the law.
"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." I would say extremists fit the bill of subversive to good order to a T. They're not all extremists. But we can't differentiate them. As I posted earlier, when terrorism becomes domesticated through immigration, the solution becomes nearly impossible to execute. It's going to piss a lot of people off and for various reasons. But that doesn't make it any less necessary.
We can't differentiate a lot of things. Freedom isn't easy. You either fully embrace it or it isn't freedom. The Constitution isn't like the English language that has "rules" with exceptions. There are only rules that govern our society. Period. Full stop. You either fully embrace those rules for all people (remember, persons not citizens) as laid out in the Constitution or you think it's not worth the parchment upon which it was written.
And that's an incredibly dumb stance to take. Either you're claiming he's drawing a strawman argument, or you're trolling with your comment. There is no other option. You weren't attempting to converse. Again, the conversation went "X is reason it's not strawman" and your very next response was "why won't you stay on topic". You have a keen inability to follow conversations.
